Where have all the so-cons gone?

Leadership campaign: Who will they vote for next weekend?

 

Adam Daifallah

National Post

 

March 13, 2004

 

It seems as if it was just yesterday that Stockwell Day burst on to the national political scene, catapulting himself to the leadership of the Canadian Alliance with a scrappy outsider campaign, confounding the most experienced pundits and experts.

 

Day and his inner circle built a powerful grassroots movement that managed to sign up thousands not previously involved in partisan politics. Many were "social conservatives" ("so-cons" for short): people who, either religious or not, place a high importance on moral issues -- curbing abortion and preserving traditional marriage, for example.

 

One of the people who helped Day vault to the leadership was Roy Beyer, the founding president of the Canada Family Action Coalition. Like many social conservatives, Beyer was entranced by Day's openness about his faith. Stockwell Day was a hero. He was "one of them."

 

"The fact that I would have large crowds of supporters in beer halls was nowhere near as interesting to [the media]," Day says now, "as when I'd speak to supporters in a mosque, synagogue or church. So the national media, who have a phobia about people of faith ... just couldn't handle the fact that I had other supporters."

 

Beyer founded Families for Day, a grassroots organization he says directly signed up 3,500 people and thousands more indirectly in the 2000 Alliance leadership race. When Day tried to reclaim the leadership after he resigned under siege in 2002, Beyer and his colleagues rallied to Day's side and recruited more supporters.

 

So where are those people today? Where will they mark their X next weekend when they cast their ballots for a leader? There is no short answer.

 

Beyer estimates about 30% of the new Conservative Party's membership are "pro-family": people for whom family values concerns are the top issues. While none of the candidates is strong so-cons, Beyer has thrown his support behind Tony Clement, who has come out in favour of traditional marriage (as has Stephen Harper) and has told him so-cons would have a seat at the table under his leadership.

 

No backroom deals were made with Clement in exchange for support, Beyer insists. The fact that Clement is willing to give so-cons a hearing is enough for him.

 

Though that may be a modest expectation, the so-con "movement" has without fanfare reinvented itself since the Stockwell Day experience, working to move into the mainstream. Canada's so-cons want to emulate the model followed by Ralph Reed, a close advisor to President George W. Bush, who, as executive director of the Christian Coalition in the 1990s, took that group's membership from 2,000 to two million and hugely raised the U.S. so-con movement's clout within the Republican Party apparatus.

 

"It's kind of a more low-profile approach," Beyer says. "The social conservative movement is maturing. A lot more people are just 'conservatives' now. Ghettoizing them as 'one-issue' people is just not accurate."

 

Upward of 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, of whom more than one-third call themselves evangelical or born-again. Not the same here. According to census data, more than 75% of Canadians call themselves Christian, but less than 3% of the total population is evangelical. (Note that so-cons are not just evangelical Christians; some are Catholics, Jews, Muslims or secular.)

 

While Beyer supports Clement, he acknowledges there isn't much of a gap between Clement and Harper on policy.

 

"Winnability is the big issue," he says. "I think Tony has the ability to win a greater level of support in Ontario. We've always had a large base in Ontario, but we haven't been able to translate that base into wins in the general election."

 

"I'm very proud of having social conservatives on my team," Clement said at a recent meeting with the National Post's editorial board. "I don't say that from a defensive point of view. It shows how I can keep building the bridges in our party.

 

"I said to [Beyer] that in the Conservative Party of Canada we should be open to the debate on issues from a social conservative point of view, from a social libertarian point of view, from a fiscal conservative point of view, from a communitarian point of view."

 

Clement's open embrace of so-cons is a bit surprising, but he is happy to have any support in a race where he is behind. Most observers would say the lion's share of so-con votes are going to Harper. Stockwell Day estimates that's where most of his former supporters are lining up.

 

"Social conservatives have generally lined up behind Stephen Harper and have done so mostly because the Canadian Alliance under his leadership seemed to stand up against the judicially led redefinition of marriage and the Liberal acquiescence with the courts," says Paul Tuns, editor-in-chief of The Interim, a Toronto-based life and family issues newspaper with a distribution of 30,000. "However, organizations that place an emphasis on the pro-life side of the ledger -- and here I'm thinking of Campaign Life Coalition -- are taking a more circumspect look at the leadership candidates. They haven't found a potential leader who is willing to offer anything on the abortion issue, anything at all to warrant an official endorsement."

 

While the mainstream media's tendency has been to paint the so-con constituency as a monolithic group of fundamentalist rubes, there are clearly divisions on strategy and tactics. The current leadership race is a case in point. People such as Beyer and Tuns represent a younger, more pragmatic approach willing to ingratiate themselves within the larger conservative movement, while Campaign Life may be said to be "the old guard."

 

Campaign Life -- or at least its leadership -- represents the more hard-line part of the so-con movement. They are not really prepared to make compromises on the issues that matter to them. Mary Ellen Douglas, the veteran Ontario chairwoman of Campaign Life, says none of the candidates is pro-life and the organization is not backing anyone in the race.

 

"I've had people phoning me about Harper, and they say he's pro-life. They say, 'Go to his literature,' but there's nothing in there. He doesn't make any stand whatsoever; he says he'd allow a free vote," Douglas told me.

 

It is true Harper has never felt comfortable with the so-con label. For years, this stolid policy wonk was thought of as a libertarian within conservative circles and generally considered wary of touching the social issues at all.

 

"Even though he's considered a traditional conservative, he doesn't believe in imposing his values on others. We have to respect that [so-con] voice and listen to it. We show respect where the Liberals try to stifle that voice," said Line Maheux, Harper's spokeswoman. She adds he is not opposed to some kind of civil union or domestic partnership arrangement for gays.

 

Maheux, a respected conservative spin doctor, worked on Stockwell Day's leadership bid in 2000 and says the difference between her current and former boss is Harper's ability to better communicate his message.

 

"I've never felt Stock was in favour of imposing his own personal values. I think that we did not communicate that properly, and it was a big mistake," Maheux said.

 

Jason Kenney, the feisty MP from Calgary who was Day's campaign chairman in the 2000 Alliance race and stood with him in the divisive 2002 battle, is with Harper this time.

 

He acknowledges that none of the contenders is a so-con white knight.

 

"Perhaps because they don't have a record on these issues and because they don't identify personally or culturally with socially conservative constituencies. Mr. Day won a lot of support from evangelical Protestants, as did Mr. Manning before him, without reference to issues but simply because of cultural identification," Kenney said.

 

But while so-cons may be reluctantly or unenthusiastically voting for Clement or Harper, they are even less impressed with Belinda Stronach. Her campaign is not directly targeting so-cons; hers is the only campaign not to answer a social conservative leadership questionnaire sponsored by the Canada Family Action Coalition, "because they do not have time," according to the Web site where the answers are posted.

 

Stronach is the lone candidate who endorses same-sex marriage, earning praise from such groups as Canadians for Equal Marriage and Egale Canada. She is pro-choice on abortion. Her campaign team includes a number of gay advisors and staff, and they have gone out of their way to make the campaign gay-friendly.

 

The Magna magnate's candidacy has created the closest thing the race has to an "anybody but" sentiment. A few so-con groups have gone on the attack. For example, Real Women, a so-con women's group, issued an "urgent action alert" to their members warning them about Stronach, singling out three gay campaign workers and warning that if Stronach were to win, "the homosexual agenda will be a high priority."

 

Stronach's campaign has taken offence at this.

 

"Her views are very clear on a number of issues that seem to be lightning rods for these groups," said Geoff Norquay, a campaign spokesman. "Certainly when they target key people in our campaign by name, that's beyond the pale as far as we're concerned. They've made their views known, and we've made our views known. This type of thing is unacceptable and reprehensible."

 

But Stronach's camp isn't without socially conservative supporters. John Cummins, a B.C. MP with socially conservative views, is behind her and supports her position of allowing a free vote on contentious issues of moral conscience.

 

No matter who wins the leadership race, the so-con constituency is not going away any time soon. It is a potent force in the new Conservative Party. And with the so-con movement coming of age, its views will be ignored by the new party at its peril.

 

Adam Daifallah is a member of the National Post editorial board.

 

© National Post 2004