Form and limits of contemporary conservativism

Contemporary Canadian conservativism is closer to the American Republican Party than it is to any other form. It is an ideological combination of economic (laissez-faire) liberalism and legal moralism, where the force of law is employed to enforce typically traditional moral values.

These two core ideas are not philosophically comfortable together. The first calls for a limited state, with little conception of a public good; the second calls for a strong state, with a certain conception of the public good.

While at odds, these combined views of conservativism have provided a strategy for electoral success, particularly in the United States. There, Republicans appeal to those committed to libertarian economic values, providing a strong basis for party fundraising and, when times are good, the political support of the upper middle class.

At the same time, its moralism appeals to those, especially in rural America and in the lower middle class, whose sensibilities are proudly traditional. (Some critical of such conservative strategy hold, albeit quietly, that the strategy relies upon the intellectual underdevelopment of rural and lower middle class America, where advanced education is less common.)

Despite Barak Obama's call for drawing together as one nation, there remains a deepening rural/urban division in contemporary American political life. While the appeal of radical economic freedom remains viable in parts of the cities, it requires that the economy is strong; never a certainty in a fixed term electoral process.

Moreover, the degree to which the Republican Party needs to appeal to its rural base is the degree to which its (sub)-urban, better educated base feels misunderstood. (This is why the Sarah Palin strategy failed.)

The challenge for the Republicans, accordingly, is to find a way to reach the suburban vote while continuing to appeal to the values of its core support in rural areas. Barak Obama's victory was based partly in his appeal to the economic interests of the lower middle class and to the values of the better educated in suburban America. To the extent that he will be able to continue to do so, he could leave the Republicans a party of rural America.

Please don't call me Steve

Despite Stephen Harper's victory over the Progressive Conservatives, his success in fundraising from his significantly more rural core, and despite his modest increase in seats in the recent federal election, he faces the same sort of difficulty as his American Republican counterpoints.

If he is ever to form a majority government in Canada he will need to find an effective way to finesse the inherent tension in contemporary conservativism and reach across the rural/suburban/urban divide.

This challenge is exactly the same as the one facing conservatives in Nova Scotia. They too need to find a way to appeal more effectively to the better educated electorate of Metro while securely holding the support of those committed to more traditional rural values. This is especially important as we move forward, since Metro is growing much more rapidly than rural Nova Scotia; this despite the value that rural Nova Scotia brings to our economy.

In recent days, watching the governments of Rodney Macdonald and Stephen Harper has proven interesting in this light. Macdonald appears to be having real difficulty finessing the inherent conflict in conservativism, where his government seems intent on having the ATV serve as the symbol of his party's conservative values.

Meanwhile, Stephen Harper is trying desperately to associate himself with the victory of Barak Obama as a means of appealing to urban Canada. He claimed, in this vein, that his recent phone call with Obama was especially warm, finding a meeting of minds. And he claims he will act in concert with Obama on the climate change dossier.

I'm not sure we're fooled. Even the Russian President claimed a warm phone call with Obama. Obama and Harper share hardly any values at all.

And Stephen's desire to work with the Americans on climate change is more likely just another way of putting off tough decisions, those that pit the values of urban and rural citizens against one another. Or it is a way of finding someone else to blame when he doesn't deliver?

The most Harper should really expect is that Obama won't call him Steve.