本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Belinda Stronach had barely made her debut as a Liberal yesterday when like-minded callers were pre-emptively phoning Toronto radio stations to bemoan the sexist nature of anyone who might in the ensuing days dare to label the woman a political whore.

Oh, how very cute, and how very familiar: It is never enough for the Liberal Party of Canada, its henchmen or supporters, to let the people decide what they will make of a given situation. The good Liberal always attempts to dictate the very language of what will, and what won't, constitute the parameters of fair comment and reasonable discussion thereafter.

But let us, just this once, dispense with those niceties.

Ms. Stronach changed parties on the very eve of the most important vote of Paul Martin's government, and slipped straight into the warm waters of cabinet -- in the position, no less, as the minister in charge of democratic renewal and of implementing the recommendations of the Gomery inquiry.

Advertisements
Register

As an aside, this is surely akin to putting the hen in charge of the fox house.

Ms. Stronach has zero experience in government; little in opposition; none in dealing with the mandarins of the civil service and the way that they can be leaned on and otherwise persuaded to fall into line with ignoble government aims; and isn't bilingual. Why, yes indeed, who better to ride herd over those well-practised, and in the main French-speaking, scoundrels from the Quebec wing of the party, Ottawa and environs?

But true to Liberal form, Ms. Stronach apparently already believes she has somehow begun to clean things up, just by her presence. Listen to what she said yesterday: "Let me say I'm very proud to undertake this role, to bring greater ethics, because without ethics, that's the foundation, that's our moral fibre." Huh? How has she done anything there but demonstrate her own feeble grasp of that other official language, English?

What changed from January of last year, when Ms. Stronach ran for the leadership of the new Conservative Party? What changed since Christmas, when she dispatched flowers to her former colleagues' doorsteps? What changed, for heaven's sakes, from a couple of weeks ago, when Ms. Stronach aired her concerns with voting down the Liberal budget, yet voted with the rest of Mr. Harper's caucus to try to bring down the government?

The Conservative Party didn't change. Mr. Harper didn't change. Even Ms. Stronach's views haven't changed.

In the short time the Canadian public has known her, and in the little she's allowed herself to be known, she's always been a liberal-minded Conservative, or what used to be called a Red Tory. Her problem with the Conservatives was always that they weren't enough like the Liberals on the issues she deems dear.

So if she didn't change, and the Conservatives didn't change, and Mr. Harper didn't change, what changed?

Pretty clearly one of two things -- Ms. Stronach's perception either of her own future within a Harper government or of the party's future itself.

If it was the latter -- that the Conservatives under Mr. Harper may not win the next election, whenever it comes -- she may well be proved correct and she will certainly have done more than her share to see to it. If it was the former, then Mr. Harper's assessment of Ms. Stronach's blond ambition as the singular force that drives her is on the money.

But either way, whatever the truth of her motive, it ought not to diminish the utter crassness of her choice. She decided that it was better to ride into the next election with a known quantity (albeit a morally vacuous and arguably corrupt one) than take her chances with an unproven quantity, especially one that to her eye appears unlikely to be able to win. If this isn't politically slatternly behaviour, what on earth is?

As for Mr. Martin's remarks yesterday -- that the timing of Ms. Stronach's move has precious little to do with tomorrow's big vote -- suffice to say that they were greeted by hoots of laughter from the national press corps, a body whose members are not noted for openly dissing the man in power.

But where, even for Liberals, he crossed a line was in casting his new Human Resources Minister as gutsy.

Gutsy would have been for Ms. Stronach to cross the floor to the homely back benches, without first seeking for herself a nifty cabinet post as an inducement. Or to sit as an independent of conscience, as others have done. Or to quit outright. The very worst scenario has Ms. Stronach not being elected and returning to her daddy's company, Magna International, and her $9-million-a-year salary; the best has her staying on as part of the government-that-will-not-die or being returned with a renewed mandate. Of such magnificent alternatives there is no place for courage.

I heard Mr. Harper's news conference yesterday, too. I thought he conducted himself remarkably well in the circumstances, acknowledging how betrayed and crushed some of his colleagues are, while saying, for his sanguine part, he had seen the old switcheroo coming. It was only when he was asked how he had learned of Ms. Stronach's plans that he mentioned Peter MacKay, Ms. Stronach's lover. Mr. MacKay, he said, broke the news to him shortly before Ms. Stronach called to tell him, which was shortly before she appeared at the podium with Mr. Martin.

Mr. Harper went on to offer that Mr. MacKay was fairly devastated by all of this.

By midafternoon, on the same radio shows where callers earlier had phoned in to protect Ms. Stronach's political virginity, people were denouncing Mr. Harper for having got personal and nasty.

Oh, for God's sake. What Belinda Stronach did to him was personal and nasty. That is the nature of a sellout, especially when accompanied by some well-aimed shots at the fellow you're ditching: Her decision was "forced" on her by Mr. Harper's decision to try to bring down the government, she said; he isn't "truly sensitive" to the needs of this "big and complicated" country called Canada.

At the risk of being deemed insensitive, I will not be lectured to by a poor little rich girl who has proved only, as someone smarter than me said yesterday, that no matter how much money you've got, you can still be bought.

She was selling; Mr. Martin was buying: Two wealthy, misunderstood, brave people, just trying to save the country. To borrow from a Chris Rock riff, those Crazy White Kids.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Chances are that Conservative defector-cum-Liberal cabinet minister Belinda Stronach does not know John Weston, Darrel Reid, Cindy Silver or Marc Dalton.

If she did, Ms. Stronach wouldn't agree with them on social issues, and that's one of the reasons why Ms. Stronach rocked her former party by defecting.

Messrs. Weston, Reid and Dalton, and Ms. Silver, are four recently nominated Conservative candidates in British Columbia's Lower Mainland.

Each is a strong social conservative, opposed to gay marriage, with strong links to religious groups such as Focus on the Family.

Advertisements
Register

Such Conservative candidates are common in the Fraser Valley or along the U.S. border in places such as White Rock or Abbotsford with their networks of evangelical churches. That these candidates should have won nominations in and around Vancouver, however, demonstrates social conservative strength, even in largely secular urban ridings, inside the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper.

That strength was among the reasons why Ms. Stronach, a social liberal, felt sufficiently uncomfortable to leave a party that she had tried to lead not long ago.

Ms. Stronach was one of the few Conservative MPs to disagree with the party's opposition to same-sex marriage -- a position vigorously supported by Mr. Harper, the bulk of Conservative MPs and candidates such as the new quartet around Vancouver.

Personal relations led to her defection, too. Ms. Stronach had been almost completely frozen out of influence in Mr. Harper's shadow cabinet. She and Mr. Harper never got on. Neither she nor her friend, MP Peter MacKay, another former leadership candidate, felt well-treated by Mr. Harper. Ms. Stronach, a media star featured in front-page stories in newspapers and Maclean's magazine, had seldom asked questions in the House. Her media stardom vastly eclipsed her substantive contributions.

Mr. Harper explained her defection as ambition denied. He said Ms. Stronach had concluded that she could not become Conservative leader, and so switched sides.

That explanation won't wash. Of course, Ms. Stronach ached for higher office. The very fact that she, an untested political commodity, had sought the party leadership demonstrated that she had ambition to burn, although it became obvious in her losing campaign that she lacked experience and knowledge of basic public policy issues. She was out of her depth as a serious leadership candidate, and it showed, often and painfully, despite her purchase of some of the best political and policy advice around.

If Ms. Stronach hungered for the party leadership, she should have waited for Mr. Harper to fail as Conservative leader, then sought to replace him. A jump to the Liberals made no sense if leadership ambition consumed her, since she isn't going to lead that party any time soon, if ever.

Ms. Stronach said she also felt uneasy -- as do many Ontarians -- with the dalliances, tactical alliances and strategic blending of Conservative and Bloc Québécois ambitions. That Conservative-Bloc congruence of interests is already a Liberal target.

In Western Canada, of course, Ms. Stronach was immediately pilloried as an Ontario MP whose switch diminished the likelihood of an early election that might have brought to office the region's preferred party, the Conservatives. Her defection will be interpreted as another example of Ontario's perfidy and self-interest by Western Canada's political right.

But the intellectual drift of the right -- and not just in the West -- is what also drove out Ms. Stronach.

The four recently nominated Conservative candidates around Vancouver reflect the kind of social conservative influence she opposed.

They are all well-qualified academically. They've all done various kinds of community service. They're all perfectly respectable individuals, but they're also very public and vocal social conservatives.

Mr. Reid in Richmond is a past president of Focus on the Family. Ms. Silver in North Vancouver worked for five years as a legal consultant to that group and was a past executive director of the Christian Legal Fellowship.

Mr. Weston in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast formed what his website calls a "Christian law firm" that has "weekly office devotionals designed to bring us closer to God and one another." Mr. Dalton in New Westminster-Burnaby was pastor of a community church and says he is concerned about the "erosion of religious liberties in the past number of years."

The social conservative movement split U.S. Republicans until its influence became so great that the party became beholden to it. The influence of social conservatives just helped split Belinda Stronach from the Conservatives.

jsimpson@globeandmail.ca更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net