Some Conservatives argue that the selection of a large number of candidates from the religious right is an unfortunate turn for a party that was accused in last year's election campaign of harbouring a socially conservative "hidden agenda."
This is a rumour that has truth to it. I have talked to more than one Conservative that shares those views.
Personally I can't see the problem with it. Social Conservatives have been taking the hammer in federal politics the past few years, and they need to re-exert themselves somehow. Dissafected so-con Liberals were no doubt going to leave the Liberal party and push for Conservative candidates that believed in their views. And quite frankly I think the party might, in some ways, just be better off for it.
My problem is that I see a disturbing pattern in nominations in some places. Most candidates will be pro-life, and against SSM, but they will still loose. They will loose to another candidate who is pro-life and against SSM. What is the difference between the two candidates? Well one might be more experienced in politics, while the one that wins is not. And what's worse, the rumours are already circulating that those socially conservative Catholic candidates are finding it harder to compete against evangelicals. We don't need those types of divisions.
The Party isn't concerned about social conservatives taking it over. They got that all wrong in this story. I think the party brass is more concerned about having a whole bunch of inexperienced candidates, that are socially conservative, possibly getting themselves into trouble in a campaign.
I would say it is a big problem. There are more important issues than same-sex marriage and abortion.
ReplyDeleteThere is something wrong when those issues motivate a large part of the active CPC membership. The Conservatives need a little more balance in the make-up of its candidate slate.
If 90% of CPC candidates oppose SSM, then critics of the party are right to worry about hidden agendas. This does not reflect Canadian opinion, which is split.
But if that is what the party is seen to stand for, then it won't ever get the chance to govern, let alone modify the laws on these issues. A veritable Catch-22.