Are the Liberals in a death spiral?
How a once-dominant party developed the Tory Syndrome - and 12 steps to cure it
ANDREW STEELE
Globe and Mail Update
October 21, 2008 at 4:10 PM EDT
The Liberal Party of Canada is the most successful political party in Western democracy. It is Canada's natural governing party. A Liberal leader inevitably becomes Prime Minister.
That and four dollars will buy you a coffee at Starbucks.
History is littered with the corpses of successful political parties. The British Liberals ruled England when it was the global hegemon, and yet proved unable to bridge class divisions and fell between the cracks. The American Whigs elected two presidents and produced the "Great Triumvirate" of Senators Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay. The Italian Communist Party routinely secured the support of one-quarter to one-third of voters until it dissolved in 1991, a victim of global history.
Liberals should let go of any illusion that their party is the exception to the rule "thou art mortal." There is no guarantee it will ever be back in government. There is no protection it enjoys from the reality of low fundraising, declining membership and internal division. If Liberals do not wake up and grasp the peril of their situation, they will join the ash heap of history.
George Perlin coined the phrase "the Tory syndrome" to describe the death spiral of poor election showings, leading to internal dissention, leading to a distressed and distracted leader and his cadre, leading to lack of attention to party building, fundraising and policy development, leading to yet another poor election showing, and so on.
Since John A. MacDonald died, the Conservatives were trapped in this endless process of self-recrimination and circular firing squads. MacDonald was followed by no fewer than four leaders in five years. Periodically, the Conservatives would emerge from the wilderness to government, but every loss was followed by internal feuding even worse than before.
John Diefenbaker would not go quietly and was a constant knife in the back of Bob Stanfield. Joe Clark's brief government was followed by three years of war with Brian Mulroney. Mr. Mulroney's electoral success temporarily quelled the dissent — at least in caucus — but at the cost of dissolving the voting coalition into progressive and Reform factions.
The Liberals are now trapped in this cycle.
Since John Turner's departure from Cabinet in 1975, there has been some factionalism between ins and outs in the Liberals: Trudeau-Turner, Turner-Chretien, Chretien-Martin. But while those fights were distracting, since 2000 the Liberals have basically been consumed by internal divisions.
The success of the Martin faction in forcing Jean Chretien to set a departure date exacerbated the problem, as it left Mr. Chretien in control of the legislative machinery of government even as he lost the party. The result was fundraising rules that hobbled the corporate-donation dependent Liberals far more than the membership-heavy Conservatives, NDP or Bloc.
Paul Martin also raised expectations of his leadership far beyond the achievable. Not only did this result in increased recriminations and mandatory resignation when he lost in 2006, but it was the main factor that fused the old Conservative factions together and ended the Tory Syndrome on the right.
Recall that in 2003, supporters of Mr. Martin were claiming the new leader would win more than 200 seats, including a massive breakthrough in Western Canada. The move so frightened the Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance that it forced them into a merger. Those opposed to working together were mollified with the knowledge that they could either unite or die in the face of Hurricane Paul.
In fact, the opposite proved true. The end of vote-splitting won the Conservatives 20 more seats in Ontario, and combined with the sponsorship-induced losses in Quebec led to the demotion of the Liberals to a minority government. Strengthened by this return on an investment in unity, the new Conservative Party placed a premium on discipline and coherence; its reward was government.
At the same time, the Liberal caucus became the best news source in Ottawa. You could literally watch MPs walk out the door and head over to their favourite reporter to play "anonymous source." This constant stream of internal dissent was manageable when the Liberals were winning majorities thanks to a divided opposition. But when the game got harder, the Liberals responded by getting less disciplined.
Imagine if a united and peaceful Liberal Party had followed in the footsteps of Mackenzie King and Lester Pearson, keeping Mr. Martin as leader in 2006. Facing a 2008 election fought on the ability of each party to manage the economy, Liberals would have had an economic lion instead of an environmentalist lamb.
Instead, we see the Tory Syndrome cured in the Conservatives and a rampant infection in the Liberals.
The last leadership race was a thundering disaster. It was decided that the party needed a good thrashing through of what it stood for, which is true. But it was also decided that a leadership race was the best way to do this, which is inherently false. Leadership races are not about policy, vision or unity. They are about signing up the most delegates and being the least-hated candidate on the final ballot. They are about personality. And they are most definitely not the way to heal old wounds; instead, as the 2006 leadership proved, they are a great way to open new ones.
For their trouble, the Liberals got a fanciful Ignatieff-Rae split in the party (which is more media creation than reality, since neither MP enjoys the support of a majority of Liberals). They placed acres of videotape in Conservative hands of Liberals attacking each other. They lost months and spent millions to no purpose. They enlisted legions of phantom party members who were never seen again after the voting ended. Their knives are out not just for the winner, but the kingmaker - and anyone else who poses a potential threat next time around.
If the Liberals are caught in the Tory syndrome, how are they to cure it? Infighting is an addiction. Like any addictive action, it makes the addict feel good and able to ignore the increasingly desperate circumstances their behaviour is forcing on them. Eventually, the addict will hit bottom, and in a moment of clarity, realize their situation. Only then can the addict begin the painful process of changing.
Like all addicts, it's time for the Liberals to take 12 steps:
1. Admit you have a problem. If the Liberals continue to believe it's just a matter of time before they return to government, they will continue to believe they can act without real consequences. Government is earned, not expected.
2. Give up on the white knight. Liberals believe that if only they could find the next Trudeau, they would win without working. The fact is that Trudeau was a failure as a politician in his first term and almost lost the 1972 election. There are no white knights. Only work and discipline will earn you back government.
3. Make a decision to unite. This is harder than it sounds. The Liberals are a large brokerage party, and that means a lot of the factions don't agree on much. There are also a lot of hatchets to bury. It will take years to dig that many holes.
4. Make an honest inventory. The Liberals are nearly bankrupt and have few quick prospects for cash infusion beyond painstaking membership expansion. The caucus is reduced to an unrepresentative rump of Atlantic Canadian and Toronto MPs. There is no leader. There is no coherent policy agenda. The Conservatives, NDP and Bloc are consciously attempting to destroy the party. It is too Ottawa-bound, out of touch with the middle-class, Quebec and small town Canada. On the positive side, the Conservatives remain unable to break through in urban Canada, there is a recession looming, the Liberal brand remains strong, and the front bench is extremely talented.
5. Admit you made mistakes. This doesn't mean walking around bemoaning the National Energy Program. It means each Liberal admitting their own role in recent election losses and internal disunity, rather than pointing the finger at the next guy. There is more than enough blame to go around. Make sure you take your share.
6. Give up your shortcomings. Liberals hold onto Shibboleths almost as badly as the NDP. There are factions in the party that would go to the grave fighting distinct society because Trudeau gave the Maison du Egg Roll speech. There are similar emotional positions on immigration, deficit fighting and a host of issues. These need to be examined rationally for their place in the 21st century, rather than clung to like a life preserver in a storm.
7. Humbly begin to remake the party. If there is going to be a Liberal government in the next decade, it will be because those who care now are working now. Work doesn't mean sitting around "strategizing." It means running for office, fundraising, signing up new members, costing policy ideas, phoning long lists and knocking on doors.
8. Figure out where the party needs to grow. With the lopsidedness of the Liberal caucus, it is critical that the party look to its future and not its present. Too many questions about fishery policy or the Toronto Transit Commission and the Liberals will be a regional rump like Reform or the Bloc. Determine key areas for growth: southwestern Ontario, Montreal suburbs, Vancouver suburbs, Northern Ontario, Winnipeg. Focus on these areas and what unites them.
9. Focus policy and tour ruthlessly on growth. In Question Period and press releases, Liberals have a habit of playing the Ottawa game: jumping on the media story of the day, looking for scandal to bring the government down, ignoring the Canada outside the Queensway. Instead, policy and issues in the House should be set by the Liberal growth strategy. Focus only on those items that will produce more seats in the next election; leave scandal mongering to the media and the NDP.
10. Constantly focus on correcting problems. This won't be easy. There will be bad days, bad polls and bad by-election losses. But public criticism isn't helping. Instead, focus on correcting problems internally, staying united and staying positive.
11. Reconnect with the middle-class. The road back to government is through the living rooms of people making $35,000 a year. Most Liberal MPs and senior party managers don't spend a lot of time in those circles. They should.
12. Never stop uniting and ensure new Liberals focus on uniting. When members are thought of as nothing more than potential leadership convention delegates, internal disunity becomes the norm. It is imperative that the future Liberal Party channels young and new Liberals into positive challenges that help them and the party: by-elections, election training, fundraising and outreach. And those members and MPs who cannot be team players should be increasingly disciplined or even removed.
You will notice that not one of the twelve steps is about a leader, except number two stating that there is no white knight. Who replaces Stephane Dion is irrelevant if these 12 steps are ignored. The new leader will be subject to merciless Conservative attack ads, which will push his or her negatives up, which will tank the Liberals in polling, which will result in internal division, which will paralyze the renewal process. And on and on will spin the Tory Syndrome.
The key question is not who the new leader will be.
The key question is: Did the Liberals hit bottom enough with the lowest vote share in the history of the party? Will this finally spark them to realize the danger they are placing themselves in? Or will they rationalize away their circumstances on the wrong leader and go back to incessant internecine bloodletting while the real problems only get worse and worse?
Special to The Globe and Mail
, it may be that the Liberals, being highly concentrated in seriously underrepresented urban Canada, represent more voters than do the Tories and will “win” with my numbers.
