I've come to believe the debate over the Emerson and Fortier appointments is not a debate about the appointments themselves, or the ethical concerns they raised. It is a debate about the place of ethics in politics. It is a debate about the relationship between pragmatism and principle, and between leaders and followers, and it is hugely important for the future of this government.
In my opinion, the appointments were unprincipled at best, unethical at worst. Others may disagree; there are good arguments on both sides. But what is striking in the hundreds of comments posted on this site since then is how many of them treat ethical considerations as, essentially, irrelevant.
I say that the appointment of David Emerson to cabinet was a grubby reward for crossing the floor. I say that Emerson's sudden post-election discovery that he was a Conservative was a fraud on the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway. I say that by inducing Emerson to make the switch, the Tories repudiated everything they stood for in the election just concluded, both in their general commitment to ethics and accountability, and in their specific hostility to such exchanges, so palpable in their scandalized reaction to the Stronach and Grewal affairs.
I say all this, and the response is: yes, but he'll cement ties with the B.C. business community. Or, yes but he'll be a voice for Vancouver around the cabinet table. Or, yes but he'll close a deal on softwood lumber.
I say the appointment of Michel Fortier, an unelected party organizer, to Cabinet and to the Senate of Canada, was a repudiation of not one but two explicit campaign promises on the part of the leader. And the response is: yes, but he'll be a voice for Montreal around the cabinet table. Or, yes but the Quebec media seems to approve. Or, yes but ...
It's as if I were to say: boy, this room is cold. And the response was: yes, but look, the walls are blue.
The most common reponse of all is a worldly appeal to apathy. If you say to me, "no one cares," what you are really saying is, "I don't care." As an ethical argument, this may serve many purposes, but rebuttal is not one of them.
SOME OF the comments at least aim in that direction. But if they do not dismiss ethical concerns altogether, they are themselves largely beside the point.
That Harper said during the campaign that he was opposed to legislation prohibiting MPs from switching parties, a point to which a good many commenters attach particular weight, would indeed be significant -- if the legal status of such transactions were what was at issue. It is not the Tory leader's failure to pass a law forbidding floor-crossings that has excited such controversy, but his own role in arranging one. I don't recall him giving as his reason for opposing such a law that he planned on inducing an MP to cross the floor, and didn't want to be unduly hampered in the attempt. Rather, he appealed to democratic principle, noting that such a ban would give too much power to party leaders, who might thus threaten dissenting members not just with expulsion but with the loss of their seats. It's an interesting, thoughtful argument. But it would have been more relevant to the current discussion had he said he wanted to retain his power as leader to lure other parties' members to his own.
That other members of cabinets past have been appointed without first being elected, the defence most commonly offered of the Fortier appointment, is similarly beside the point. The issue is not that Fortier has not been elected -- though the longer that remains the case, the more it will become the issue -- but that Harper had said he would do no such thing. It isn't the appointment, as such, or his elevation to the Senate, that raises ethical issues, as undemocratic as they are. It's the breach of faith.
And none of this -- not the broken promises, not the undemocratic appointments, not the crossing of party lines or the dangling of cabinet posts -- none of it is redeemed a whit by the observation that it has all been done before, that "the Liberals were worse." Yes the Liberals were worse, far worse. Yes, the Tories are being held to a higher standard. Why is that a complaint? Would their supporters prefer that the Tories were held to the same standard -- that is, that people expected them to be no better than the Liberals? The Tories are being held to a higher standard for the same reason they were elected: because they set a higher standard for themselves.
TO BE CLEAR, I don't think the Emerson business is "just as bad" as the Stronach affair. It matters what the terms of trade are in such transactions, as it matters who is on either side of the exchange. In Stronach's case, it was very clearly a trade of one job for one vote: a job for which she was wholly unqualified, in exchange for a vote the Liberals manifestly did not deserve. Stronach brought nothing to the table but her vote -- that, and her willingness to look the other way at the Liberals' ethical lapses. It isn't just that she crossed the floor, but whom she was crossing to: a party that had not just lost the "moral authority" to govern, but (in my opinion) the constitutional authority.
Emerson, by contrast, would obviously be cabinet material in anyone's government, while the Tories have none of the ethical or constitutional clouds over their heads the Liberals did. So the two situations, while comparable, are not identical. But if moral equivalence is to be avoided, so is its reverse. To say that both are wrong is not to say that both are equally wrong. But to say that one is worse than the other is not to absolve the second of any fault whatever.
No one's saying, or certainly I'm not, that this one episode marks the Harper government as a failure, or that the Tories are just as bad as the Liberals, or that we would all be better off with the Liberals back in power. All I have said, for those who need reminding, is that these appointments were a "mistake." And the most that I or anyone have suggested as a remedy is that both men should put themselves up for election. I am not sure why this idea should provoke such fury.
Well, I have a theory. And here we come to the point I made off the top: this isn't about Emerson and Fortier, or the correct prodecure for crossing the floor. This is about whether questions of principle are permitted to intrude into political decisions, and by extension whether those committed to the principles on which a party was elected -- in a word, its base -- have the right to object when their leaders seem to stray from them.
Those who are determined to extinguish any hint of dissent probably think they have the party's best interests in mind. More broadly, they may think they are upholding a pragmatic view of the world, against an unyielding, unrealistic purism. They may feel that sticking too firmly to principle at any one point can jeopardize the party's ability to enact the rest of its program. And in a lot of cases they would be right.
But that doesn't mean they're right this time. I've said I don't think this one issue outweighs the whole of the Tory platform. I also don't think there's a choice to be made between them.
The debate here is not between purism and pragmatism, much as self-professed pragmatists always want to believe it is. The issue is not whether compromise is sometimes necessary, but which kinds of compromises are. Unless you think all compromises are acceptable, in which case we have nothing further to discuss.
LEAVE ASIDE the question of what practical gains are to be had from protecting Emerson and Fortier from the rigors of seeking election, and whether these are such prize catches as to be worth all the aggravation. Let's think longer term. Is the sacrifice of principle in this case likely to retard or advance the Tories' ability to realize their larger ambitions? And, perhaps a less obvious question, is it likely to increase or diminish their desire even to try?
One of the things I have always admired about Harper is his preference for "the long game": for focusing on long-term strategic objectives, even where this meant passing up short-term advantages. It's possible, as his idolators insist, that he is doing so even now. But there is another way of playing the long game, and that is by preserving a reputation for straight-shooting -- not just because shooting straight is the right thing to do, but for the practical benefits it brings.
A reputation for honesty is hard won, and easily lost. It is a priceless asset in a leader, especially when paired with a reputation for good judgment. (Joe Clark had the first but not the second.) If people trust you, they will follow you, and stick with you when times are tough. They will accept sacrifices they might otherwise reject, take risks they would ordinarily avoid, because you tell them it is worth it.
A leader's job is not to give people what they want, or to tell them what they need: it is to persuade them to want what they need. Trust is a critical element in that. Indeed, it is indispensible.
There are two ways to realize the value of an asset. You can sell it, in which case you get an immediate return, at the obvious cost that it is no longer available to you. Or you can hold onto it, and reap the dividends over many years. I don't say that Harper has squandered this asset with the choices he has made this week. But he has significantly devalued it. From now on, everything he does will be viewed through this lens. Whenever he makes a pledge in future, he will be reminded of the ones he did not keep on his first day.
But -- this is the good news -- he will be much more of a mind to keep his promises because of this week. I want to be ruthlessly pragmatic here. Every leader must at some point or another betray his base. I don't mean break his promises, though even that will sometimes be necessary (the great ones do so only in the most extreme necessity, the lesser ones do it every other day). But there are always choices to be made, about whether to press ahead with this or that objective, or put it off to another day; whether to hold out for the soundest policy, or settle for second-best; whether even to veer off course altogether, under pressure from a political opponent or private interest. And in these decisions, being practical sorts, they will make a practical calculation, weighing the political costs of antagonizing the opposition against the costs of betraying their base.
By their evident dismay at these two appointments, the Tory base has sent an important message to the government: we are not to be trifled with. They have adjusted the political scales in their favour. In future, the government will not be so quick to take them for granted.
Now put those two points together. Suppose, in the face of these abrupt departures from principle, the party had burped contentedly, and gone to sleep. What message would that have sent to the broader public? That indeed, the Tories were no different from the Grits. Instead, a good section of the base rebelled, even over a decision that benefited the party in a narrow political sense. Harper's reputation may be diminished after this week, but the party's, if you ask me, has been enhanced.
AND THAT'S that. Even if the government does hold byelections now, the damage has been done. And if it doesn't? The country is not going to collapse because of a couple of broken promises, and neither is the government. The point has been made. It's time to move on.
Or, in my case, it's time to go skiing. See you in a couple of weeks.
last.fm
2/28/2006
0 Comments
