The experts have chimed in, and the consensus is clear: socially conservative politicians can’t get elected in Canada because they’re too socially conservative.

Most of the election post-mortems contain something along those lines. Columnists and pundits are in agreement that one of the reasons conservative candidates did not do better on election night is they weren’t pro-abortion enough. Progressive candidates on the other hand earned a minority government by appealing to the broad swath of middle-of-the-road Canadians on important social issues like abortion and assisted suicide.

Needless to say, the political experts in media are advising the Conservative Party of Canada that if it ever wants to form a government again, it needs to get itself a new leader who will attend gay pride parades and enthuse about women’s fundamental right to choose.

It’s a reasonable conclusion to draw if you regard Canada as a naturally progressive country that’s being held back by conservatives. The typical columnist or opinionated journalist sees Canada as a work in progress, a country that is better represented by politicians who are “closer to the centre” and respond to the needs of “all Canadians.”

Of course, people tend to draw conclusions that reinforce their prejudices, so it’s to be expected that left-leaning analysts conclude conservative politicians who want to get elected need to move to the left.

My bias, on the other hand, is toward a culture that respects life, traditional marriage, and family. And while I try to be fair toward others’ positions, the outcomes I reach are going to reflect that predisposition.

So when experts suggest Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer’s pro-life Catholic faith was a major factor in his loss, let’s recognize the biases of the media pundits are hard at work as they form their conclusions.

One commentator, for example, said Scheer should have been clearer that as prime minister he would “proud to abide by the rule of law” and state his number one task “would be to enforce the laws of Canada, not to enforce the dogmas of the Catholic Church.”

To which I say, rubbish.

Canadians who voted Liberal, NDP, People’s Party of Canada, independent, or for someone else, did not generally do so because they feared Scheer’s Catholic faith, or his pro-life views. The fact that the number of pro-lifers elected increased to at least 68 from 53 suggests an aversion to social conservatism was not the problem. 

The reason the Conservatives turned off so many potential voters this election was because they could see, as one observer said, that the leader wasn’t being forthright about his pro-life views. (I’ll let others speculate on whether the party tried to play it too safe and politically correct on other issues as well, but voters want sincerity and candor in their political leaders.)

As for the myth that an urban-rural divide makes it impossible to elect social conservatives in metropolitan areas, pro-life organization Right Now reports in our centrespread this week that the Conservative vote actually increased in Metro Vancouver and the Lower Mainland. Ridings like Port Moody-Coquitlam and Cloverdale-Langley City flipped Conservative, despite media attacks on the elected candidates for their pro-life views.

It’s important to recognize that most of the political analysis in the wake of the election is driven by a narrative that desires change for the sake of change and sees every revolution as “progress.”

But Canadians are more traditionally grounded than is reflected in the media. They can take heart in the fact so many pro-life candidates and voters were able to connect this election.

Twitter: @paulschratz
pschratz@rcav.org