CHARBONNEAU – Conservatism suffers from a split personality
THERE HAS BEEN MUCH ANGUISH and hand-wringing over what it means to be conservative. This is especially true for traditional conservatives who see their party being high-jacked by freedom convoyers and populists.
Conservative values have been replaced by angry mobs in the streets as when Ottawa was occupied in January of 2022.
Traditional conservatives, usually reserved, see flag-waving demonstrators espouse conservative values in a rowdy display of nationalism.
The confusion over what it means to be conservative matters to me because the Conservative Party is the party in waiting. Should this Liberal government fall, I will be subject to a government that is in an identity crisis.
The split in conservatism is so new that names for the two personalities are hard to find. In the past I have called the wild fringe of conservatives “freedom convoyers” and “populists.”
But columnist Andrew Coyne is using new names that might stick. Coyne is one of those rational conservatives whose opinions I value. He is alarmed over the rise of populism and the subversion of conservatism. Coyne calls the angry fringe “national” conservatives or NatCons. And he calls traditional conservatives, like himself, “freedom” conservatives, or FreeCons.
FreeCons believe in free and open markets and minimal interference of the government.
“NatCons take a more interventionist line, in which business decisions are explicitly shaped by government direction,” says Coyne (Globe and Mail, Aug. 11, 2023).
FreeCons believe that the state has no business in the moral choices of citizens, such as abortion. NatCons believe that morals should be dictated by the state as we have seen by the alarming persecution of women who want to control their fertility.
Coyne says that FreeCons take an optimistic view of America and of open society generally. They are inclined to welcome immigrants. NatCons see the world as threatening and want to isolate America from foreign entanglements, for example Ukraine.
The politics of American Republicans has shifted dramatically over the last few years. They now believe the opposite of what they used to believe. The party of free trade now endorses protectionism. The party of law and order endorses insurrection. The party of personal responsibility endorses the reckless liar Donald Trump.
Given the influence of U.S. politics, it might seem that Canadian conservatives might shift from being FreeCons to NatCons; except that our economy is much more heavily trade-oriented than the U.S. and less inclined to protectionism. And almost one-half of our population are immigrants, or the children of immigrants.
Canadian Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is the most overtly populist national party leader we have had. Yet, his leaning to NatCon populism seems to be more of an affectation than a true persona. He hopes to tap into the anger many Canadians feel over COVID restrictions and dislike of PM Trudeau.
Unlike his U.S. counterparts, Poilievre is pro-immigration, pro-choice, pro-gay rights.
“He is, in short, a recognizable democratic figure – the demagogue, the opportunist, the bunkum artist – rather than the harbinger of a new political order,” says Coyne.
I’m not sure I agree entirely with Coyne’s assessment of Poilievre. He certainly is an opportunist who will do anything to seize power. Once in government, he could become irrational and do anything to stay in power including the subversion of the democratic process and civil insurrection.
David Charbonneau is a retired TRU electronics instructor who hosts a blog at http://www.eyeviewkamloops.wordpress.com.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
Interesting read:
Coyne has it right when he uses the word “con”. NatCons or FreeCons either group are trying to con Canadians into thinking life would be better with their party in power. Spare me. I think not. We have had Conservative Governments before and our Medicare and veterans to mention two have sufferred.
LikeLike
And Medicare and veterans are thriving under the Liberals? Trudeau’s disdain for anything to do with the military is palpable.
LikeLike
Coyne is generally pretty Left-leaning as it is, The fact that the referenced piece was in the Globe, the newspaper only slightly less stridently pro Liberal Party of Canada than The Star is evidence enough. Why are people told to be so afraid of Poilievre and the CPC? Is it because they should be uncomfortable with all-too-uncommon common sense? The fact that he wants to let Canadians decide for themselves on a host of economic, social, and moral issues? That he believes The State should be less, not more, pervasive in folks lives? That he believes in balanced budgets, accountability, and lower taxes? Mainstream media keeps telling us we should fear him and these principles. I embrace them, as do most Conservatives. The either or spectre of the current administration, or a Trump-like regime is constantly trotted out by MSM like a tired dog and pony show when nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the last paragraph of your piece describes perfectly the desperate clutch for power that we have seen from the marriage of the LPC and NDP. It is rich indeed to accuse the CPC of those very tactics when they have been a longstanding but conveniently forgotten trademark of the current fiasco that passes as government.
LikeLike
How is Coyne left leaning? “Why are people told to be so afraid of Poilievre and the CPC?”, you ask, well maybe it’s bc Poilievre is an opportunist and the party is in a deep identity crisis. Did you even bother reading the column? A leopard doesn’t change its spots, we’ve seen Poilievre for a long time, warts and all. Remember when bitcoin was the rage and Poilievre said ” a government led by him would do more to normalize cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and ethereum in Canada to “decentralize” the economy and reduce the influence of central bankers.”(John Paul Tasker · CBC News)
LikeLike