Conservatives once again prove masters at "shooting the wounded"

If Andrew Scheer seems to be looking slightly over his shoulder in this photo, it's probably because he is the latest in a long line of federal Conservative leaders to be gutted by his own party members. Chances are, his successor as leader will suffer the same fate.

Andrew Scheer has resigned as leader of the Conservative Party. This is no surprise, given the incendiary remarks about his leadership, the results of the recent election campaign and the attacks on his personal religious views. Most of the remarks can be traced back to fellow Conservatives - often whispered to the media on condition of anonymity, who then repeat these anonymous opinions as fact. It brings to mind what has often been said about those engaged in politics and other endeavours where the chief aim is to try and persuade others to a certain perspective: “When you lose the battle, one of the first things to happen is that those still standing go onto the field and shoot the wounded.”

That this should happen to a Conservative leader is no great surprise. It has happened many times in Canadian political history. It could be argued that the only Conservative leaders who did not suffer this fate were Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Robert Borden. Borden only escaped it because he resigned his post after the First World War - which physically and mentally exhausted him, and also steeled him into as tough-minded a leader and Canadian prime minister as this country has known.

One other Conservative leader may have escaped the fate of being hounded out of office - Sir John Thompson, who had the good fortune to die in London in 1894 after two years as prime minister, thus escaping the endless and unceasing battle on leaders the party is so well-known for.

Here’s the long list of Conservative leaders who have been sniped at, cursed at, laughed at and generally kicked around - by their own party members, their own MPs, the Liberals and other political parties and the media.

After Macdonald’s death in 1891, Sir John Abbott was briefly prime minister. After Thompson’s death, there was Mackenzie Bowell and then (briefly) Sir Charles Tupper, last of the fathers of confederation to serve in a leading role. After Borden’s resignation there was Arthur Meighen, perhaps the hardest-luck Conservative leader of all-time. (Joe Clark would run a close second).

There was R.B. Bennett, Robert Manion, Arthur Meighen (again), John Bracken (who wouldn’t take the job unless the party changed its name to Progressive Conservative, George Drew, John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, Jean Charest, Joe Clark (again) and Peter MacKay. At that point, the PCs (under MacKay) merged with the Canadian Alliance, successors of the Reform Party. This occurred after MacKay had promised his leadership rival David Orchard that he would not do so. Alliance leader Stephen Harper became the first leader of this newly-merged Conservative Party, and prime minister for nine years. He was followed by acting leader Rona Ambrose, and since 2016, Scheer.

There has been no shortage of duplicity. Just looking over that list brings to mind many putsches and revolts. The most famous two were in 1967, when Diefenbaker was unceremoniously stripped of the leadership in a convention which resembled a public execution, and 1983, when Mulroney’s whisper campaign against Clark led to the former leader being dumped in a leadership contest he called for, after receiving only 67 per cent support in a leadership review. That precedent would certainly have been top of mind had Scheer hung onto the leadership and gone through a similar review at a convention planned for April.

One reason for so many uprisings is the fact that the Liberals usually win elections. Harper thought he had put an end to that dynasty in 2011, when the Liberals were reduced to a third party and the NDP under Jack Layton became Official Opposition. But Layton died and the Liberals in desperation (they had lost three elections in a row and gone through three leaders) turned to Justin Trudeau.

They hoped Trudeau the Younger would replicate what his father did in 1968. And he did, and then he pulled off a minority win in October, despite numerous ethical lapses

Despite what many media people and political commentators are saying, policy, principles and convictions have nothing to do with the latest Conservative crisis. The party has a culture of losing and its members are always the quickest to pick up weapons and shoot the wounded. Jagmeet Singh led the NDP to significant losses in the recent election, yet he is sailing along smoothly as far as his members are concerned.

Some claim that younger people will never vote Conservative. That is as ridiculous a claim as most of the others being bandied about. The reality is that most Canadians are, at least in part, conservative people. They are polite, honest, hard-working and respect others. Most are not radicals, and the vast majority aren’t even very interested in politics. Young or old, they could be attracted to vote Conservative, but the way the party conducts itself is a major reason that many don’t.

I’ve been covering federal politics for 40 years, since Clark won his short term in office in 1979. I’ve been interested in it since the 1960s. I’ve studied it in high school and university.

The Conservative Party, in my view, is the most two-faced of all major parties, certainly since Harper became its leader. Candidates often do not show up for public forums during election campaigns on a regular basis, usually on instructions from the campaign headquarters in Ottawa. Nomination battles are frequently interfered with by HQ. Hard-working local volunteers are shuffled aside by Ottawa “veterans” who are usually in their early 20s and have no knowledge of real people and real-life situations. “Instant” members often determine who the candidates are, and in the case of Scheer, who the leader is.

Of course all parties have these type of people, and they are frequently a cancer on democracy. The Conservatives, however, seem to attract a higher proportion of them than do other parties.

Have the Conservatives, despite all that, provided good government on those few occasions when they are entrusted with power? Generally, yes.

The Conservatives created Canada as a country that spanned the width of North America, under Macdonald. He also established the principle and importance of having a strong 2IC who understands the part of the country that the leader doesn’t know well, in Sir Georges Cartier.

Borden, more than any other leader, governed in a crisis atmosphere. His lack of a strong 2IC led to the conscription crisis of 1917, the country’s worst existential crisis by far. He did secure very important steps towards complete independence at the Treaty of Versailles talks and set the table for Canada’s freedom to conduct its own affairs internationally. He also brought in the income tax (as a temporary measure).

Diefenbaker took the first tentative steps towards the Charter of Rights with his 1960 Bill of Rights, and was the first to name a female member of cabinet with full departmental responsibilities. The first Chinese-Canadian MP was a Progressive Conservative, Douglas Jung of Vancouver. Diefenbaker actively encouraged his candidacy. He also ended the ban on residents of Indian (First Nation) reservations voting in federal elections.

Mulroney brought together Quebec and Western Canada in a grand alliance which saw the party win 211 seats in 1984, and was a leader in dealing with apartheid in South Africa and the Free Trade Agreement. He also brought in the GST, and set a high standard for personal diplomacy with other world leaders, notably U.S. presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

His shameless favouritism towards Quebec and endless focus on getting Quebec to sign the constitution led to most of the western party leaving and taking root under Reform.

Harper got federal spending under control (most of the heavy lifting had already been done by Liberal finance minister Paul Martin) and brought in the Tax Free Savings Allowances, just about the only way people can legally make money in Canada without first having to give the government part of it. His dictatorial approach to running the government led to his defeat.

In short, Conservatives have been leaders in many areas of federal policy and direction, despite many fewer years in office than the Liberals.

Now we will be in for another year of tortured conversations about how the party can move forward. Will it work this time? If history is any guide, not likely. In fact, while Conservatives navel-gaze, the country is moving towards a break-up. Their focus on their own affairs is not going to help matters any.