Cole Hogan: Red Tory? Blue Liberal? These terms mean nothing anymore
Questioning outdated political classifications has drawn the ire of those who would seemingly prefer we go along to get along, writes Guest Contributor Cole Hogan.
Cole Hogan is a conservative political strategist.
Since MP Chris d’Entremont’s floor-crossing from Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives to Mark Carney’s Liberals, there have been a lot of pixels spilled on the future of conservatism in Canada.
D’Entremont’s excuse for crossing the floor was based on self-interest, not principle. His excuse confirmed that. D’Entremont stated he crossed the floor because, as a “Red Tory”, he felt uncomfortable working under Poilievre. The “Red Tory” excuse is laughable, primarily because it evaporates after 30 seconds of questioning.
D’Entremont has a pro-life voting record in the House of Commons. If we consider the modern-day use of the term “Red Tory”, meaning the cliché (it pains me to even write this) “fiscally conservative, socially liberal”, d’Entremont hardly qualifies on this issue alone. Offering the excuse of being a “Red Tory” is a politically made-up, meaningless, convenient escape hatch. No one knows what it means, certainly not the average working Canadian.
You, the person reading this? You might have an inkling. You might have heard a Conservative call themselves a “Red Tory” to endear themselves to more progressive company. You might have heard a Liberal call themselves a “Blue Liberal” to endear themselves to more conservative company. You might have heard either of these terms thrown into the ever-evolving vortex of “centrism,” another middling, political term that amounts to, “not this, but also not that”. These terms mean nothing. They’re outdated and not suited for today’s complex politics.
No one under 40 in Canada is telling you they’re a “Red Tory” or a “Blue Liberal”. These terms are irrelevant to them. It’s the equivalent of asking people if they’re more of a “Liberal Conservative” or a “Conservative Liberal”. For a political class that consistently reiterates how we need to speak to everyday Canadians in plain language, we sure do a hell of a job giving them confusing classifications that help no one.
Should we ignore those who still classify themselves with these labels? No, but they’re not the be-all and end-all either, nor are they a sizeable faction of Conservatives, or potentially attainable swing voters. If they were, Jean Charest would be leading the Conservatives today.
In January of this year, David Coletto at Abacus Data conducted some interesting research on the ideological dimensions of Canadians and what it means for 2025. The smallest segment, 6 percent, “blends economic conservatism with cultural progressivism, the fiscally conservative and socially progressive Canadians”.
These are the current-day “Red Tories”, such as they exist. Coletto further defines this group by stating, “They are also the people likely running the country, newsrooms, corporations, and public sector organizations. They are the elite that many are currently running against”.
There’s another classification for these folks, the “Laurentian Consensus”. The unquestionable groupthink of Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. The cities along the St. Lawrence Seaway and their inhabitants that have historically dominated our nation’s policies, politics, economy and culture.
It’s no wonder this conversation caught fire online and on assorted televised pundit panels. Having created it, there’s nothing the Laurentian Consensus cares for more than the status quo. Even questioning the practical current-day use of political terms that have long outlived their usefulness is enough to draw the ire of those who would prefer you’d go along to get along, thank you very much.
On the CBC, Andrew Coyne said, “The reaction to Chris d’Entremont moving over was, ‘He’s a Red Tory, who needs him? We don’t need their kind in our party.’” He went on to claim, “The definition of ‘Red Tory’ is getting elasticized. […] There’s an ascendant faction within the [Conservative] party where it’s all about culture. It’s all about fighting the culture wars and anyone else is sort of an old-fashioned out-of-touch, Reagan-Thatcher conservative.”
Predictably, these are things no one within the conservative movement has said. No conservative said, “He’s a ‘Red Tory,’ good riddance.” The reaction to d’Entremont’s floor-crossing was more a response to his “Red Tory” excuse, not an appeal to exclude them from the party.
The assumption behind this panellist’s quotes is that our generation of young Canadians wants to completely jettison economic issues in favour of the culture wars, which, again, no conservative has said. Our generation of conservatives would merely prefer to not cede ground to progressives on every single social issue. I think any objective observer can look at the state of the country and see why that is.
To quote Norman Eyolfson’s latest in The Hub, “By ignoring the culture wars, conservatives have given de facto permission to progressive cultural expansion without constraint. We have ignored our role as a stabilizing force in society. Our modern superstructure, our politics and our modern Western society, has been largely dominated by liberal-progressive sensibilities for the last 40 years or more”.
After defining social norms for decades, the generations before us scoff at us for even attempting to join the conversation. Our generation wants affordable groceries, rent and homes, reasonable immigration policy, safe streets and sane addictions policy.
This is not the “culture war,” nor is it an abandonment of economics or pocketbook issues. It’s fighting for a future we’ve lost.
Cole Hogan has played a leading role in conservative campaigns in Ontario and Alberta, and has advised elected conservatives across Canada. He is a regularly featured national media pundit.
