Media Wants To Choose Your Leader
February 1st, 2020 | RR
You may have noticed the earlier polls to come from Leger and EKOS showing Rona Ambrose as the frontrunner in the CPC leadership race, with almost zero competition from any other polled candidates—except ones that aren't even running. From the get-go, media and Liberals have been trying to portray a divided Conservative Party that is in turmoil, but if independent polls are any indication, that's all a bunch of bullshit. Real, accurate and honest polls covering the leadership race wouldn't do what Leger and EKOS have been doing. Real, honest polls wouldn't include Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney and other candidates who have already—months ago—made it clear they had no intention of running. Whether intentional or not, these dishonest “scientific” polls have aided the media's narrative about a divided Conservative Party.
According to both EKOS and Leger, Rona Ambrose's closest competitor was Stephen Harper. There's just one problem. Stephen Harper isn't running for the party's leadership, nor is Jason Kenney. Yet, both of them are included in the polls as viable contenders and their inclusion only distorts and skews the actual numbers.
(article continues after ads)
A second red flag is in the “undecided” margins of these two polls. As the slate of candidates grows bigger, so does the division. I have a hard time believing that so many Conservative voters were really undecided, especially when they were being given a healthy bunch of choices. According to Leger and EKOS, more than a quarter of Conservatives were undecided when given choices like Stephen Harper, Ambrose, Poilievre, Rempel and Kenney. Again, these numbers could be somewhat accurate or totally wrong, but the bigger the undecided margin is, the more likely it is that the field will flood with even more opportunistic candidates. Candidates that were sitting on the fence could have been encouraged to enter the race when they saw that a large margin of the party membership was undecided.
A massive field of candidates will spread the numbers thin and further divide the Conservative membership with too many choices. That's exactly what Canada's media and the CBC want and exactly what the Conservative Party appears to be trying to avoid.
The previous CPC leadership was a shit show. Having to choose between Bernier, Scheer, Chong, Trost and Leitch was like trying to choose a disease with the mildest symptoms. Of all of them, Scheer was the better candidate. Had all of the rumoured candidates run, it would have made the 2017 slate look pathetic—which it kind of was. However, with most of the best contenders now bowing out, it's hard to say how this next leadership race will go.
With Ambrose, Bergen and Poilievre out, I have a hard time saying these choices are better than what 2017 had to offer.
We have to work with what we have and the best way to gauge support is not the way mainstream pollsters are trying to do it. The only kind of poll that matters when measuring this leadership race is one that removes the option to be “undecided” and only uses a slate of confirmed or prospective candidates. The methods used by Leger and EKOS won't tell us anything except what the media wants us to believe. They want us to believe Conservatives are undecided, in turmoil and in danger of sinking if they refuse to alienate social conservatives and anyone who doesn't abide by the media's progressive doctrine.
Mass immigration and strict inclusivity are products of corporatism and consumerism. Both the corporate media and the CBC see every new Canadian citizen as a consumer and a taxpayer. Major Canadian businesses and corporations want to grow their markets, while the Liberal Party wants to grow the country's tax base. The mainstream media and the CBC have two preferred outcomes from this latest Conservative Party leadership race, both of which are aimed at protecting Canada's current progressive doctrine of immigration and multiculturalism.
Make Conservatives “Unelectable”
One goal of the CBC, Liberal Party and corporate media is to elect someone to the party leadership who can be easily painted as bigoted, racist, sexist, transphobic, xenophobic or homophobic. The consensus, even among many conservatives, is that the next leader must—in fact—be more inclusive and far less socially conservative. However flawed this consensus may be, it appears to be driving much of the party's current base and the corporate media.
Andrew Scheer never bothered to challenge the narrative. Rather, he chose to whimper away quietly and repeat scripted lines whenever he was called out by journalists for refusing to march in Pride. Scheer let the media and CBC have their way with him—probably by the advice of his shitty strategists. He let them paint him as a regressive social conservative without ever doing much to defend himself. Had he attempted to challenge the narrative by asking questions, or firmly defending his personal views, he could have gained the respect of more voters in the GTA and Maritimes.
"The previous CPC leadership was a shit show."
Instead, we are left with the media saying “I told you so”. According to them, Scheer lost because he refused to march in Pride and reassure women that their right to choose was safe. This narrative is almost entirely inaccurate, but it has become the consensus.
The truth is, Scheer let himself be viewed by conservatives in the GTA and Maritimes as weak. As a result, they lost their fire. Conservative turnout was high in the West due to alienation, but it failed to ignite the same flames of passion in other, important key regions. A friend of mine from Ontario who idolized Stephen Harper told me that he simply didn't have time to vote on election day. He was busy at work and believed Trudeau would win again anyway. When I asked him what he thought about Scheer, he said, “The guy has no passion. I have no idea what he really stands for.” This is a common utterance among conservatives everywhere. You've probably heard it and said it yourself.
Scheer failed at convincing true, grassroots conservatives in the East. He didn't fail because he refused to march in gay parades or because he believes abortion is murder. This is a false narrative being pushed by corporate media and the CBC. Until we get a strong leader who challenges their every move, the narrative won't change. The next leader can continue the tradition of refusing to march in Pride, as long as he defends his reasons loudly and passionately.
Elect A Mushy Progressive
A second way for the corporate media and CBC to protect Canada's ongoing progressive doctrine is to elect a soft progressive to the party leadership. Their perfect candidate is someone who will march in every parade and surrender to their every demand.
When Rosemary Barton chastises you for saying something goofy ninety years ago, you apologize. That's the rule. Unfortunately for the CBC, a truly successful Conservative leader won't need to follow that rule. However, if a mushy progressive gets elected, that's the kind of direction the party will be headed. Having a soft progressive leader may win Conservatives the next election, but only if the Liberals continue to be viewed as corrupt. If Trudeau, or the Liberal Party, somehow improve their image in the next two years, having a mushy Conservative leader won't count for anything. There won't be a reason for centrists and moderates to switch sides.
If Liberals hang on to their current reputation, Conservatives would most definitely (and easily) win the next election with a leader who marches in Pride and touts their love of abortions. Hands down, it would be an easy win—but not a long-term cultural win.
Conservatives should know the saying, “politics is downstream from culture.” To win the long game, conservatives need a leader who will help change the cultural mindset of the country. Only then will it become easier to win elections and to beat Liberals, all without having to move the party further to the left.
Changing Canada's irrationally excessive progressive culture won't be easy, but a strong leader could help pave the way. Say and think what you will of him, but Donald Trump has managed to single-handedly change America's political trajectory in less than four years—all in the face of a strongly biased corporate media and excessively progressive academic culture. It would be an even bigger uphill battle in Canada (with our Westminster system), but it wouldn't be impossible.
The media has had a grip on Canadians for as long as I can remember. To date, I haven't seen one single conservative leader beat their narrative. Canada's media landscape is one of the least diverse in the world, with all of our corporate establishments singing the same tune and shutting out anyone who challenges the status quo. With the right personality and strategy, the status quo can come crashing down. Unfortunately, we haven't had anyone with the will or the fire to burn it all down. Even Stephen Harper lacked the gravitas to get the job done.
Out there, somewhere, the Conservative Party has a potential leader and culture warrior waiting to declare war. This stock of candidates might have that one person who will take the movement to the next level. However, if the Conservative Party's establishment keeps following the media's rules, it might never happen.
© 2020 Poletical