(Yes, I know what I said when I last posted. But I won’t be “out-of-range” until tomorrow, so I want to make use of this opportunity while I can.)

Y’see, the title of this blogpost is a question that’s been nagging at me since February, when I saw so much negative Blogging Tory reaction against the heavy-spending “stimulus” budget. What struck me was not so much the anger at seeing fiscal conservatism being abandoned, as the fact that whatever alternative approaches the dissenters suggested were – well, facetious, for lack of a better word.

You may recall that, during the month of March, I set up several PollDaddy questions in which you were asked to pick, from a selection of government spending programs. At the time, I received more than a few responses asking why on earth I didn’t enable multiple selections so that people could “get rid of them all!”

My main reason was – and is – quite simple: even if you think all the programs were useless, you’ll realize that some of the programs listed are more useless than the rest. If I had enabled the multiple choice option, or given the response “Cut’em all!”, there would be no contest: the “Cut’em all!” would have won by a landslide. People who clicked the “Cut’em all!” option would not have bothered to think about the question — and that’s not what I wanted.

The point of the PollDaddy questions was to get you to think about those programs: what purposes they served, whether or not they met their outlined mandate, whether or not the reasons for their existence are still valid today, what alternatives (if any) would exist if the program were cancelled.

And I gather, based on the low responses to some of the questions, that a lot of people who read from Blogging Tories didn’t want to think about those programs. In fact, one was rather explicit (I’m paraphrasing here): “Too much heavy lifting. Fortunately I voted for an MP who’s paid to do that sort of thing for me.”

But does he?

If he’s a Tory MP, then he’s obligated to support the government, or otherwise risk censure or caucus expulsion. Which means he (or she) has to be the one to explain the government’s actions to constituents. The Tory MP, when it comes to the Budget, represents the Government to the People. On this matter, shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Well . . . no. At least not as things stand now. Let me outline the scenario:

Constituent storms into the local MP’s office, angry that the government has increased spending. “You should be cutting spending!” Constituent snarls at the MP. “Look, why don’t you cut program X? That would save tons of money!”

“Ah,” says the MP, “but do you know what Program X does?”

“Nothing useful,” says Constituent, “because I’ve never heard of it until now, I don’t use it, and I bet no one else does.”

“Actually,” says the MP, “Program X is used by a lot of people, mostly in other districts. The latest audit report says they’re spending their budget wisely. And a lot of people would lose their jobs if the program were to cease – not just government people, but locals in the area. Shutting down the program would wreck that local economy. Do you really want the government to hurt people like that?”

“Oh,” says Constituent, who slinks away from the office in embarrassment.

Do you see what I’m getting at here? If you want your local MP to lobby for reduced government spending, then it’s up to you to make the convincing argument that such spending is (a) economically sound, (b) furthers the interests of the nation, and (c) is sellable to the People.

It’s that last point that’s particularly important – and which brings me back to the title question of this blogpost.

Since 2006, almost every initiative undertaken by the federal Tory party to earn and keep power has been based on some aspect of the Liberal Party of Canada. It wasn’t obvious at first, mainly because (a) the Tories needed to gain some experience while in power and (b) the Liberals had a three-year deficit in meaningful leadership. Now, with the coronation of Michael Ignatieff, the grace period has come (temporarily) to an end.

The mainstream media has criticized Ignatieff for not having articulated policies or anything else to hint at a clear vision of Canada. That coverage is just fine, but you know what? Neither has Stephen Harper — and certainly not in a way that’s resonated with the Canadian people. All the Tories have done, really, is articulated an anti-Liberal stance: “these guys will ruin the country if you let them back in power!” and variations thereof. (And I don’t exclude myself from this; I’m as guilty of this charge as everyone else.)

There is a Conservative vision of Canada out there – one where the size of federal government as part of Canadian society is reduced to its absolute minimum, one where provinces and municipalities are more empowered depending on the services delivered, one where the rearing of children is a duty and responsibility worthy of support at all levels, one where individual responsibility takes precedence over tribal and societal desires. But that particular vision of Canada rarely gets articulated, either because its adherents take such a vision for granted or because they’re afraid of the effort needed to sell it to the rest of the nation.

We’ll need to get over that part of it soon. And that’s going to mean the “heavy lifting” my commenter wanted to avoid is now unavoidable. Tories, at the grassroots level, have to educate themselves on all aspects of government spending, starting with what said spending is actually meant to do. That level of education will make it easier to convince non-Tory Canadians that, as a party, we can do more than just make an unthinking protest.

It’s important, because until the Tories, Blogging or otherwise, can learn to promote Tory positions without basing them on anti-Liberal stances or parroting party press releases, the Canadian people will never believe the Tories will be confident enough in their vision to earn a majority government.

(One other thing: I won’t be able to access the Net for another two weeks, which means until then I won’t be able to post your comments up. If you have your own blog, feel free to link here and post your own responses; otherwise I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to be patient. See you in mid-May.)

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 3rd, 2009 at 22:41 and is filed under Blogging Tory Challenges, Can Cons. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.