Far be it from me to get into a personal brawl with Diane Francis. For one thing, she's a friend. For another, she once gave me a break by running a weekly column by me when she was editor of the Financial Post. For a third, she's usually right. But this time she's dead wrong, and since she usually speaks for a sizeable chunk of Toronto opinion, they're probably wrong too. To explain, I'll have to quote at length from a column she ran last month in the National Post.

"The United Alternative," she writes, "can only happen if there is an expulsion of certain ultra-conservative elements in both parties [meaning Reform and the Tories]. The two have been infiltrated and influenced by fringe groups whom I will describe as social conservatives. Social conservatism and economic conservatism are mutually exclusive. Economic conservatism is about free enterprise, personal responsibility rather than statism and opportunities for individuals.

"To me, social conservatives are often religious fanatics who are rigid social engineers. They would, if allowed, impose their theology on society rather than letting individuals make their choices. Social conservatives censor, disdain divorce, homosexuality, or letting a woman choose what to do with her body. Social conservatives reject any alternative lifestyles, all in the name of sustaining the traditional family structure.

"These two theologies do not belong in the same political movement or party. Economic conservatives are all about freedom. Social conservatives are all about social controls over individual lives. How can someone support less government intervention in business while advocating restraints on personal behaviour? Social conservatives deserve a voice in our democracy, but should do so in a separate political party. Their involvement in the Reform Party is a real turn-off east of Manitoba...They are a minority. Reform's success in the West has had to do more with its stunningly good policies concerning Western mistreatment, economics, immigration, law and order, Quebec and free trade. In essence the United Alternative political organization—call it whatever you like—must simply be the Reform Party platform, minus social conservatism."

Her advice has a very unpleasant ring of familiarity. Precisely this attitude was adopted by the B.C. Liberal Party prior to the last disastrous provincial election. The Liberals made it clear they regarded social conservatives as an insignificant coterie of religious kooks, mostly rural, who could safely be ignored, so the so-called kooks invested their support in the provincial Reform Party. It took 9% of the vote, just enough to deny the Liberal victory and visit upon B.C. yet another dose of NDP government, arguably the worst provincial administration in Canadian history.

Moreover, you suspect that Ontarians who may hold this view are suffering a fundamental misapprehension, namely that it is socially conservative Reformers who are resisting the UA movement. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Who in the Reform Party would face "expulsion," to use Ms. Francis' word, if her advice were taken? Several MPs spring to mind: Jason Kenney, Eric Lowther, Val Meredith and Deborah Gray, all loathsome social conservatives, all "infiltrators." Yet all are central to the UA movement within the Reform Party.

And who would be likewise read out of the UA? Stockwell Day, certainly, Ralph Klein's finance minister and key member of the UA's foundational committee. Tom Long, the Harris government's election strategist in Ontario, now in the UA movement, is also exhibiting decided inclinations toward social conservatism. The disease is not altogether confined to the West. Ms. Francis's recommended policy, in short, would strip the UA of most of its leaders.

She is equally off-base in saying these people would "impose their theology on society"—except in the sense that every law at some level is the expression of a moral principle, and therefore every law surely imposes some kind of morality on somebody. Even a law requiring drivers to be licensed "imposes" driving tests on novice drivers. A law forbidding homosexual practice imposes restrictions on homosexuals. A law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals in hiring, imposes restrictions upon employers. A law prohibiting abortion imposes upon a woman the penalty of an unwanted child. The repeal of such a law imposes upon the child the penalty of death. So the question is not whether to impose but what to impose.

The answer of the Reform Party and its dreadful social conservatives is that these questions should be decided by popular referendum: Let the majority rule. The alternative is to let a parliamentary majority decide, or let judges decide, or let "enlightened opinion" decide. Would Ms. Francis agree with that? She doesn't say. But if it's not the majority, then it must be a minority—in which case who is guilty of "imposing"?

Finally, she apparently believes that public opinion on these "social" questions has been resolved in Ontario and will not change. But in the United States, whose trends we habitually follow, it is very definitely changing. Since 1981 the U.S. divorce rate is down 19%. Since 1984 the birth rate for unmarried teens is down 7.5%. Since 1990 abortion is down 15.3%.

In 1995 Gallup found only 33% of Americans declaring themselves "pro-life." Last year Gallup put the pro-life figure at 48%. This year a feminist group called the Centre for Gender Equity announced in some alarm that 53% of American women now favour either banning abortions altogether or permitting them only in cases of incest, rape or where the mother's life is in danger. This would outlaw 95% of abortions now performed.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll shows that 64% of people who call themselves "conservative" (i.e., both social and economic) think the most important thing in society today is "promoting respect for traditional values." More surprising still, 33% of liberals agree with them. Ms. Francis's response to all this is to banish social conservatism from the united right. But is she ahead of the times or behind them? The answer seems obvious. BCR

BC Report is available at your favorite newsstand,
or save up to 43% with a subscription