More manipulation from the establishment.
What does “centre-right” mean?
Generally, it has meant a belief in lower taxes, a strong national defense, a robust approach to crime, and an emphasis on the government staying out of personal issues.
For example, the Harper government was very much a “centre-right” government, having reduced taxes, toughened crime laws, balanced the budget, increased military spending (temporarily before cutting it unfortunately), and staying out of personal issues.
Many forget, but when the Conservatives first won a minority government under Harper, there was a vote in the House of Commons on whether to return to the traditional definition of marriage. The vote failed, and the Harper government declared the issue settled, and never revisited it again. The party even changed their official policy declaration to end their opposition to same sex marriage.
On abortion, Harper repeatedly said he would not reopen the issue. Individual MPs – as is the right of any elected MP – were free to propose their own legislation, but – as Harper had promised – there were no changes to Canadian abortion laws.
So, by the typical Canadian definition, the Harper government was “centre-right.”
Why do I bring all of this up?
Because there is clearly an attempt to twist the meaning of “centre-right” into something that has no resemblance to how we generally understand it.
You’ve surely noticed how many people in the media and the Charest campaign have been claiming that the Conservatives need to be a “centre-right” party, and then claim that Pierre Poilievre somehow isn’t “centre-right.”
And yet, a quick look at the basic outlines of Poilievre’s campaign demonstrates that it is well within the usual definition of centre-right in Canada.
Poilievre has repeatedly stated he won’t be reopening ‘social issues,’ and his low tax, limited government perspective is in-line with what Conservatives in Canada have been saying for quite some time.
What has really made Poilievre’s campaign stand out is not that he just takes “centre-right” positions, but that he defends those positions when they are demonized by the media.
What usually happens is that a Conservative politicians proposes a centre-right idea, and the media then attacks that idea in effort to redefine it as “far-right.” Most of the time, the Conservatives have surrendered to that media framing, meaning the political spectrum shifts further and further to the left.
That has been a losing game for the Conservatives, and Poilievre’s refusal to play that game is a key reason he has been so relentlessly attacked. The Liberal media wants a CPC leader who will lose politely without actually proposing any Conservative ideas, hence why they are pushing Charest so much.
Disrespecting CPC members
Another important point to consider is that the effort to completely redefine “centre-right” is disrespectful to CPC members.
Poll after poll shows Poilievre is the choice of most members, and given that the CPC is the largest centre-right party in Canada, it follows that Poilievre is obviously resonating with centre-right Canadians.
Thus, the attempt to recast him as “far-right,” while claiming Charest is “centre-right” flies in the face of reality.
The Liberal media wants you to think that “centre-right” is nothing more than big-government Liberal policies with a different brand name.
If they are able to redefine it as such, the bounds of political debate in this country will narrow even further, and we will all be worse off.
Canadian Conservatives would be disenfranchised.
That’s why we need to fight for reality, and push back whenever the establishment attempts to redefine things in service of their manipulative scheming.
Spencer Fernando
***
If you want to help stand up against the dishonest narratives of the establishment media, you can make a contribution to support my work through PayPal, or directly through Stripe below.
[simpay id=”28904″]
