The Ideas at the Centre of the Centre

In last weeks piece on Stephen Harper's position on the political spectrum, I referenced his seminal 1997 opinion piece (co-authored with Tom Flanagan) "Our Benign Dictatorship" which is as clear of a blueprint for forming a Conservative government as you are ever going to read. In it, Harper had some choice words for the Liberal party:

The Liberal party... is a true centre party... standing for nothing very definite but prevailing against a splintered opposition. It avoids definite ideological commitments and brings together people simply interested in exercising power and dispensing patronage.

So while last week I wondered whether Harper aspired to turn the Conservatives into something very similar - a party detached from any principles other than forming the government - this week, following the release of their policy platform, I think it is fair to ask if the Liberal party does, in fact, stand for any clear principles that serve to distinguish it from the Conservatives. The quick answer is no. The longer answer is no, but what a lost opportunity.

The Quick Answer:

On April 3, the Globe and Mail's John Ibbitson wrote that the liberal platform marked a return to a "Trudeauesqe" past of increased social spending paid for by higher taxes. This was in stark opposition to the Conservative approach of lower taxes and balanced books that characterised what Ibbitson had called in an earlier article Harper's "night watchman" concept of government. But, notwithstanding Ibbitson's desire for the better political theatre that an epic clash of the left and right might provide, even a cursory reading of the liberal platform suggests that the two parties are just not that far from one another. This was certainly the view of the editorial board of the Globe, who called the platform prudent, pragmatic and "Harperian" the next day.

While the Liberal platform formally invokes the notion of equal opportunity as its guiding hand, it is difficult to read it as actually being ordered by any philosophical principles. Indeed, the document is filled with references to the importance of families, of making better economic choices and supporting innovation. But these are, of course, empty buzzwords. Who campaigns against families? Or on making bad choices? Who is anti-innovation?

While there are differences with respect to the approach to corporate taxes, the regulation of carbon, military spending, prisons and pensions, the whole tenor of the Liberal platform is essentially: 

Hey, vote for us, we're a little better at governing than the Conservatives; we're nicer than they are and we really, really miss being in government. (No seriously, we really, really miss it.) Please...Vote for us. Come on. Please.

In reality, however, the choice for Canadians is between two contractors bidding to renovate your bathroom: the cheaper one, who promises to get it done quickly but any optional extras (like the sink and toilet?) are going to drive the price up and delay the completion date, and the other, the more expensive one, has included everything (do I really need heated tiles?). But it does not really matter which you pick. The bathroom will look more and less the same, cost more or less the same in the end, and take twice as long to finish as either of them promised.

The Long Answer

It seems pretty clear that this election will not return the Liberals to the house with more seats than the Conservatives. Anything can happen in an election, but realistically Michael Ignatieff's job is two-fold: first, prevent Harper from forming a majority; second, increase the total number of Liberal seats in the house. If he is successful in either of those goals, we'll either see a Liberal-NDP coalition topple the new minority government or another election in a few years. Either way, Ignatieff's real challenge is to present himself more than simply a man who wants to lead the country but one who is capable of doing it.

In this context, the Liberal platform presents a lost opportunity for Ignatieff to lay out an idea of why government from the centre is philosophically sound, preferable to ideologically driven views from either the right or the left, and that he is interested in more than simply naked power grabbing. As one of the leading public intellectuals of the 1990s - at least outside of Canada - this would also give Ignatieff an opportunity to play to his strength as a thinker and a teacher.

So what we are missing is a substantive charter of the foundations of centrism, for example: trust in the independent institutions of government; balanced books achieved through reasonable tax revenue and cost-effective spending; an articulation of what an appropriate citizen tax burden is; an understanding of what real environmental trade-offs we are facing; a moral vision of the relationship between the state and the rights and freedoms of individual citizens; an independent and scaled foreign policy; a clear explanation of the role of the market in ordering or social and cultural priorities; a practical commitment to strategic economic policy planning; and a detailed promise of open government. 

Do not give us empty platitudes about how great families are, give us your vision for how government should work and be understood in the 21st century.  Such an approach is more complicated and will take time to work its way through the simplistic lens of the media and the impatience of the electorate. But, realistically, time is what you've got; why not use it more effectively? Over time, ideas always win out over tactics.

If we return to the contractor analogy, Ignatieff can make the point that, while he might cost more at the outset, he will also show up to the job with the tools necessary to deal with any and all unforeseen challenges. In contrast to the contractor who shows up with only a hammer and proceeds to use it in every situation.  I speak from experience: that’s usually been my approach to home renovations and I assure you that it always ends up costing more. -BC