Ontario Needs an NDP of the Right

“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.” ― Milton Friedman

You’ll often hear Ontario voters say it doesn’t matter who they vote for, all politicians are the same. There’s good reason for this. It’s because the scope of political debate in Ontario is narrow and getting narrower.

When was the last time you heard a candidate endorse vouchers for schools? Private access to health care? Referendum and recall? Cutting spending (as opposed to the cop-out ‘reducing waste’)? Or that most dangerous of policies: restrictions on unfettered access to abortion? These are all third rails in Ontario, and Ontario politics has more third rails than the TTC.

In jurisdictions outside Canada politicians often discuss issues considered off-limits here. No muzzling of members, no punishment from party leaders. Free and open debate. Ideas that can’t be discussed in Ontario are the law of the land in many countries, several more liberal than Ontario. For instance, regulation and restriction of abortion is in place across all Europe. In every country on the continent citizens can spend private dollars on health care. And Sweden, Sweden!, has a voucherized school system. Funding is identical for private and public schools.

So what is the problem with Ontario? Ontario has an incredibly narrow Overton window.

The Overton Window

Joseph Overton was vice-president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Michigan think-tank. His description of the range of ideas that are politically acceptable is called the Overton window. These are the ideas that politicians will espouse without fear of being labelled outside the mainstream.

Ideas that are furthest outside the Overton window are considered ‘unthinkable’. As they approach the window they become ‘radical’. Within the window policy ideas move from being ‘acceptable’, to ‘sensible’, then ‘popular’. Finally they become actual law.

Hallin’s Spheres is a similar description of this phenomenon specific to journalism. Historian Daniel C. Hallin suggested that media coverage of a topic can fall into one of three spheres. The first sphere is consensus. In this sphere are topics about which the journalist believes there is no serious disagreement. “(J)ournalists do not feel compelled to present an opposing viewpoint or to remain disinterested observers.” A contemporary example of this would be the health dangers of cigarette smoking. The second sphere is legitimate controversy. Topics here are those where the journalist believes rational and informed people can be on either side of the issue. An example of this might be free trade, or the Energy East pipeline project. Journalists strive for objectivity and dispassion within this sphere. The third sphere, deviance, is for those topics thought unworthy of consideration. These include UFO sightings or appearances by Elvis.

Many policy positions that fall inside the Overton window (and the sphere of legitimate controversy) in other democracies are considered radical or unthinkable by Ontario elites. The small Ontario Overton window is perpetuated by a vicious circle of progressive journalists who hound politicians with the threat of ‘gotcha’ media coverage, and political actors who manipulate media coverage to demonize their opponents. Besides being narrow, the Overton window in Ontario has a leftward centre of gravity. When the window does move it does so in favour of those radical ideas espoused by leftist voices.

How the NDP Loses Elections but Wins Arguments

Widening, or shifting, the Overton window requires players who are willing to talk about unpopular ideas. They must be willing to be considered radical. They must be willing to not win elections.

In Ontario, the NDP fill that role on the left. The NDP advocates for environmental and social causes that normally wouldn’t receive a hearing from the Liberals or PCs. By providing an outlet where supporters of these causes can make their voices heard on election day, these causes are legitimized in the eyes of the media who see 10, 15 or even 20% of Ontario voters supporting the NDP. This begins the process of moving an idea from ‘unthinkable’ or ‘radical’ to something polite people can talk about. When the Liberal party begin to lose marginal seats to the NDP, it forces Liberal strategists to consider talking about these ideas too. Soon Liberal candidates begin making promises on matters they had never thought about before. Promises that they may even keep when they get elected. The PCs, to swing voters from the Liberals to themselves, now have to get in the game too. They must appeal to a public caught up in the discussion of an idea originating on the left. Voters on the right have different concerns but, with no where else to go, the PCs take those voters for granted. Instead, they pursue the marginal voters on their left flank. So moves the Overton window.

As public discussion focuses on issues that matter to leftist voters, policy positions harden in the public’s mind. One side becomes seen as acceptable, the other unthinkable. Mainstream, or radical. So we have the bizarre situation revealed by a recent poll. Of Canadians surveyed, 43% of those who oppose same-sex marriage would refuse entry to immigration applicants who don’t support same-sex marriage. In the same poll, 26% of pro-life voters would reject the application of pro-life immigrants. Belief in traditional marriage and the right-to-life have become so firmly planted outside the Overton window that even their supporters find these ideas offensive in others! Such is the power of the media and political elites in shaping the cultural landscape of a people.

Thus the PC Party of Ontario, as the least bad option, can expect to receive the votes of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives while sometimes/rarely/never (take your pick) staking out policy positions to their liking. And if the PCs ever win government again, they will probably disappoint social and fiscal conservatives like Stephen Harper did at the federal level for 10 years, hoping to perpetuate their power by hugging the middle of the road.

One thing is certain, though. The Overton window is much narrower for Ontario elites than for the general public. And that presents an opportunity for political entrepreneurs on the right.

Liberals say we have ‘social peace’ on the issue of abortion. What they mean is that pro-life voices are not heard, and they like it that way. The situation is similar for education reformers, healthcare reformers, and democratic populists. In Ontario we don’t have unanimity on these issues. We have a conspiracy of silence. A silence enforced by ostracism and mockery and enabled by spineless politicians. But it doesn’t have to be like this.

Examples from Europe

Let’s look at examples of political parties challenging modern liberal orthodoxy. They do it successfully, and in some surprising places.

Few places are more liberal than Scandinavia. Yet the Finland-based Finns Party won almost 18% of the vote and 38 out of 200 seats in the most recent election. They oppose same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption. They are even against in vitro fertilization for single women.

In more liberal Sweden, the Sweden Democrats put the needs of children ahead of the desires of libertines. They oppose government sanctioned adoption or insemination by same-sex couples or singles. With these conservative policies the SD finished third in the 2014 federal election.

When Denmark decided to legalize same-sex marriage in 2012 (seven years after Canada), the Danish People’s Party opposed them. The DPP is the second largest party in parliament and received 21% of the vote in 2015.

The story is the same elsewhere in Europe.

In Switzerland the largest party is the traditionalist Swiss People’s Party (SVP). The SVP oppose expansion of the welfare state, and public financing of maternity leave and nursery schools.

In 2016 the German AfD (Alliance fur Deutschland) scored several election upsets. Their platform includes advocating for ‘traditional family patterns’.

These are ideas that aren’t even talked about in Ontario anymore, let alone advocated by a major party.

It isn’t only parties with social conservative platforms that are performing well in liberal Europe. Parties emphasizing economic conservatism are also having an impact. None more so than the United Kingdom Independence Party (Ukip).

Ukip scored a huge upset by forcing Prime Minister David Cameron to hold a referendum on U.K. membership in the EU. Then in 2016 it astounded elites around the world by winning that referendum. Ukip bill themselves as libertarian and the ‘true inheritors of Thatcherism’. They are also a textbook example of how a fringe party can force a mainstream party into adopting a previously untenable position. By threatening marginal Conservative seats, Ukip left Cameron little choice but to commit to a vote on EU membership. To the surprise of most observers, the population seized this rare opportunity to deliver a stunning message to elites. All thanks to a party that has never held more than 2 seats in the House of Commons — and won only 12.6% in the last election.

The Progress Party is the third-largest in Norway, another bastion of Scandinavian progressivism. Established in 1973 as an anti-tax protest, the PP is strongly free market and advocates for less government intrusion in the economy. The current leader is the Minister of Justice in the coalition government, after the party took 16.3% in the last election.

These are a few examples of successful political movements in Europe that give voice to ideas outside the Ontario Overton window. Where is the party that will do so here?

To find out if there is a market for a ‘radical’ party in Ontario, let’s look at the most untouchable policy issue in the province: abortion.

Survey results on abortion in Canada vary depending on the wording of the question, but one thing is true across all polls. There are many voters who support restrictions on abortion. Yet no party advocates for them. This Ipsos poll which seems to be pushing a pro-choice view concludes only 51% of Ontarians describe themselves as ‘pro-choice’. That leaves half the population with no voice on election day.

An Environics poll found 28% of Canadians support restrictions on abortion from the point of conception. Support for this radical notion is 5% higher than the share of the vote the NDP received in the last provincial election. And only 3% less than the official opposition PCs garnered.

There is no reason to think that Ontario voters are unique in the world. Issues that matter to people in Europe or the United States matter to voters here. The only difference is no politician here is speaking for them. Somehow, we need to widen the Overton window.

Patrick Brown Needs Help

Conservatives of all flavours would like to see the Ontario PC Party succeed. We want the party to win a majority government and put in place conservative policies.

Ontario is in an epic mess and the cleanup isn’t going to be easy. Mike Harris had to fix four years of socialist madness. In contrast, the winner of the next election will have to fix 16 years of incompetence of breathtaking dimensions.

Sadly, Patrick Brown has not shown the commitment to conservative values demonstrated by Harris. Brown’s flip-flops on social issues and his embrace of a carbon tax have left supporters disappointed.

So Brown and the PCs are going to need help. They are going to need the accountability and discipline that comes from an electoral threat on their conservative flank. Ontario needs an NDP of the right.

A New Party: an NDP of the Right

What should be the composition of this new party? It must be more than a social conservative party. The Family Coalition Party was perceived as that and has since disappeared. It must be more than a fiscal conservative party. There are already two libertarian outfits wasting time and energy in this province. And it can’t be only a party of democratic reform. That isn’t a broad enough base for building a viable electoral threat.

Ontario needs a party that can be the home for all those in the political wilderness. A party that holds to a Judeo-Christian worldview. Not to establish a theocracy, but to promote the values that were the majority view in Ontario not that long ago. It needs to be a party that unabashedly speaks for fiscal conservatism in all spheres of public life. That includes those ‘untouchable’ budgetary items Health and Education. And it must be a party that will advocate for radical decentralization of our democracy. If it works in Switzerland and Vermont, it will work in Ontario.

This new party must be one of compromise. Not compromise with the media or the political establishment, but internal compromise. Compromise among the three constituencies.

Social conservatives sometimes have a soft spot for welfarism. They must realize there are already three parties in that consumer space. Fiscal conservatives need to ditch the condescension. They must recognize that social conservatives are not neanderthals. They are the keepers of a flame that predates Adam Smith. A flame that is the necessary foundation of a free society. And democratic reformers must agree that some principles stand outside majority opinion. Like property rights and the right to life.

This party must be a party of ideological conviction. Its commitment is to program, not to pragmatism. It should be a refuge for political outcasts, a mobilizer of those with no political home. An educator — of the media and other politicians. It has to say the things that people say in their homes but never hear from a politician or a newscaster. This must be a party that validates the beliefs and values of voters who are in the political wilderness.

This must be a party of life, marriage, family and faith. It must advocate for smaller government overall, not just ‘more efficient’ delivery of the same programs. It must touch the third rails of private health care, school vouchers, pension reform and labour reform. And it must be committed to radical democratic changes. Referendum, recall, free votes, and a considerable decentralization of power. Finally, it must be a party very inclusive of immigrants. Unlike the populist movements of Europe, this party must embrace newcomers to Ontario. These are voters that share our values.

There is a market for a political party espousing views outside the Overton window in Ontario. By giving voice to even 5–10% of voters, we can change the discussion in this province.

A well-organized, broadly-based coalition of ‘radicals’ can effect change in Ontario. Not by winning power, but by moving the Overton window. By bringing our ideas into the mainstream we can then ensure the old-line parties pay the price at the polls if they ignore this block of silenced voters.

Craig Dellandrea can be found standing in line at the consulates of Switzerland, Monaco and Lichtenstein applying for refugee status. He can also be reached at craigdellandrea@sympatico.ca