Harper's SSM motion designed to fail, appease rednecks and centrists

175-123: the Conservative minority government's motion on same-sex marriage motion was defeated in Parliament on Thursday. A victory for all progressives. The regressive beliefs of Harper and his cronies publicly and officially defeated. And end to a dark chapter in 21st century Canadian politics. Hooray.

But is the self-congratulation amongst progressives a moot point? Did Stephen Harper not only expect the motion to be defeated, but actually want it defeated?

Vijay Sappani argues in a recent blog article that Harper knew the motion would fail, but still tabled the motion, in order to keep his promise from January's general election campaign. Sappani assumes that if Harper's Conservatives procure a majority after the next election, that we should expect Harper to reopen this issue yet again:

"While many think the SSM debate is over and closed, it will come back from the grave (if and) when Harper wins a majority, when he has enough numbers in the parliament, to win and to win enough seats he had to open it now."

While I agree with Sappani that Harper expected the motion would fail, I disagree that Harper actually wanted the motion to pass (at least for the time being). In fact, I reckon that Harper wanted the motion to be defeated, so as to put the issue to rest (again, at least for the time being).

Why? To increase his chances of winning a majority in the next general election, no doubt.

Tabling this motion appeases the majority of social conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage. While the motion did not pass, it was at least tabled by the Conservatives - and thus it looks like Harper tried his best (even if he genuinely knew the motion would be defeated). Harper thus keeps his election promise from January; and for those looking for a socially conservative messiah, they would still look to Harper before the leader of any other party.

But even more importantly, by ensuring that the motion would (rather quietly) fail, Harper would have an excuse to close the issue of same-sex marriage - a loud and concise closure, publicly communicated to the Canadian public, with "blue Liberals" and former Progressive Conservatives in mind. These are the voters who would potentially give Harper a majority government - fiscally conservative, socially progressive. Harper is no fool - he knows that he has to quiet down the extreme leanings of the "hats and horses" element of the new Conservative Party of Canada, if it is to appeal to enough centrist-leaning voters to give Harper a majority government in the next election.

Besides, socially-conservative legislation might not appeal to Harper's agenda as prime minister. Prior to politics, Harper was an economist. And during his formative years in government, he was a policy wonk. While he clearly holds socially conservative personal views, he's certainly not the hardcore evangelical that he is often demonized as - even if many of his new CPC colleagues could be labelled as such.

Perhaps Harper is not all that different to new finance minister Jim Flaherty - a typical Thatcherite neo-conservative, distrusting of big government, and a fan of the market over public involvement in services. He wants to reduce government spending, and thus is looking to cut as many "non-essential" government services as possible, and possibly even flirt with privatization of some essential services. And, quite rightly, he wants to tackle Canada's massive financial debt.

By examining Harper's track record over the past 10 months, fiscal conservatism clearly seems to be his forte. Especially when compared to how rushed the recent same-sex motion was, and how quick Harper was to bury the topic immediately after the vote.

By sticking to financial conservatism, rather than social conservatism, Harper can increase his appeal to centrist voters during this time of minority government. Whether he wants a majority government in order to do more of the same financial dirty work, or to be able to unleash his so-called "hidden agenda" of social conservatism (as many of his detractors put it), minimizing the "regressive" face of the party will enable him to attain that majority.

While Harper has gone on record as saying, "I've always been clear, I support the traditional definition of marriage", consider several other quotes he has made (about same-sex marriage and abortion - two obsessions of social conservatives), and how relatively restrained they sound:

"I have no difficulty with the recognition of civil unions for non-traditional relationships but I believe in law we should protect the traditional definition of marriage."

"But I'm very libertarian in the sense that I believe in small government and, as a general rule, I don't believe in imposing values upon people."

"But I've been very clear in this campaign - I don't believe the party should have a position on abortion."

"I don't believe an Alliance government should sponsor legislation on abortion or a referendum on abortion."

"My own views on abortion, I'm not on either pole of that and neither of the interest groups on either end of this issue would probably be comfortable with my views."

It is arguable whether Harper is strategically restraining his government because he wishes to "save up" any socially-conservative legislation until he has a majority government, or whether Harper honestly doesn't have any significant desire to introduce heavily socially-conservative legislation. But the one thing that is certain is that Harper is indeed restraining his government on topics of social conservatism.

Tabling a motion on same-sex marriage may not seem retrained on the part of Harper's government, but consider his determination not to alienate the blatantly social-conservative element of his government's support, combined with the actual language of the motion:

"...introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages." (emphasis was my own)

Clearly, Harper is doing his very best to keep the support of the "hats and horses" brigade, while also appealing to centrist voters. Or, in order words, strategic spin at its very best.

While bloggers will no doubt spend millions of electrons debating whether Harper has a "hidden agenda" that is being mothballed until a majority Conservative government is achieved, what is much more certain is that Harper knew his same-sex motion would be defeated in parliament, and that he wanted such an outcome.

With this in mind, why are we progressives in such a celebratory mood, given the pre-determined failure of Harper's same-sex motion? We've simply played into Harper's strategic hand, and have given him the excuse to moderate his party without alienating his socially-conservative support. Now that Harper has formally closed the issue (at least for now), he may succeed in removing the perception of socially-conservative "fangs" from the CPC, and thus extend its appeal to centrist Canadians who would not have considered voting Tory if a same-sex marriage debate was still looming.

So, the question looms - just who really won this latest round?